Double Agent Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 One thing I've learned in the years of play FF is my ROTW cheat sheets aren't always correct. In fact they rarely are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 You're role as commissioner in no way gives you the right to veto trades. + a million let people run their own teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 + a million let people run their own teams  I generally agree on the no veto of a trade unless it is collusion or maybe some serious player dumping (Rodgers, AP & Megatron for a kicker). But if it isn't the commissioner's place to do then who? A league wide vote on "fishy" trades? Or just no way you ever veto a trade no matter what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I've made it very clear that I think there are reasons trades should be overturned - even if there is no collusion. Â Don't give a furry flying f-ck what anyone thinks about my take either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I've made it very clear that I think there are reasons trades should be overturned - even if there is no collusion. Â Don't give a furry flying f-ck what anyone thinks about my take either. Â Seriously - you need to get laid, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Seriously - you need to get laid, dude. Â Wow... that's really funny. Â No, I just get sick and tired of people on their soap boxes saying "no collusion, no veto". I personally think that's absolute horseh-t. Â And I take a lot of heat for having that take and as I said, I don't really much care. Actually, I don't give a furry flying f-ck to be more specific. Â Not going to get into the whole debate. Not interested. Â Flame away. It's your style BB. Go ahead and make inferences and twist what I said. Also your style. Â You go boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Wow... that's really funny. No, I just get sick and tired of people on their soap boxes saying "no collusion, no veto". I personally think that's absolute horseh-t.  And I take a lot of heat for having that take and as I said, I don't really much care. Actually, I don't give a furry flying f-ck to be more specific.  Not going to get into the whole debate. Not interested.  Flame away. It's your style BB. Go ahead and make inferences and twist what I said. Also your style.  You go boy.  Nevermind.  You need to join a monastery and find Jesus. Or start drinking very heavily. Edited November 4, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Wow... that's really funny. No, I just get sick and tired of people on their soap boxes saying "no collusion, no veto". I personally think that's absolute horseh-t.  And I take a lot of heat for having that take and as I said, I don't really much care. Actually, I don't give a furry flying f-ck to be more specific.  Not going to get into the whole debate. Not interested.  Flame away. It's your style BB. Go ahead and make inferences and twist what I said. Also your style.  You go boy.  All the posturing aside......do you think this trade warrants a veto based on your mysterious criteria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I veto this thread. Â I second this veto. The motion carries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Nevermind. You need to join a monastery and find Jesus. Or start drinking very heavily.  What else do I need? You must be butter 'cause yer on a roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 All the posturing aside......do you think this trade warrants a veto based on your mysterious criteria? Â No, I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Manage your own damn team or run all 12 teams by yourself, maybe you'll win at the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Manage your own damn team or run all 12 teams by yourself, maybe you'll win at the end of the year. Â It's this exact mentality that I take issue with. Â It's NOT black and white. Â There can be gray areas in between that people ignore when posting this crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Wow... that's really funny. No, I just get sick and tired of people on their soap boxes saying "no collusion, no veto". I personally think that's absolute horseh-t.  And I take a lot of heat for having that take and as I said, I don't really much care. Actually, I don't give a furry flying f-ck to be more specific.  Not going to get into the whole debate. Not interested.  Flame away. It's your style BB. Go ahead and make inferences and twist what I said. Also your style.  You go boy.     Like the way you think. I agree, I'm not doing it for my own benefits and just looking after the league. No one wants lopsided trades. Not good for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkris Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's this exact mentality that I take issue with. It's NOT black and white.  There can be gray areas in between that people ignore when posting this crap.  I guess there could be, but really you shouldn't be policing.  In a redraft league there should be no veto's, unless there is collusion, like some poster said above rodgers+ap+megatron for a kicker. But then you also have to deal with the owners.  Maybe in a dynasty league where by letting people trade away their team only to have them quit next year and make it very difficult to find an owner. Even here there are ways around it.  Let's say after week 1/2 someone wanted to trade C2JK for fred jackson and you didn't let him because in your mind its "unfair." That trade would of been huge right now. Now the owner is pissed because CJ sucks and fred is killing it.  You have to let people manage their own teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 What else do I need? You must be butter 'cause yer on a roll. Â Find a monastery to join that puts up ####loads of wine? Two birds, one stone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 For those of you that favor allowing vetoes when there is no collusion ... will you give the owner his money back and pay him as if he won the superbowl if it turns out that the trade would have been a "fair and equitable" trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Haaaaaaaaa, that was kind of funny. Â Â As a commish, I hope I never have to step in. Should trust your guys. But there is always that one trade that just doesn't make sense. Guess it also depends when the trades are made too. A good season, is one that nothing has to be done. Never fun for a commish to have argue with anyone about things. Enough other things to do (for free) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Why do you keep asking that stupid Question? Sometimes it works out the other way. Does that guy pay the commish a few hundred for not letting the trade go through? Jeeezzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Why do you keep asking that stupid Question? Sometimes it works out the other way. Does that guy pay the commish a few hundred for not letting the trade go through? Jeeezzz  That's not the way it works ... he pays an entry fee and gets to make his own decisions ... and live or die by his own decisions. UNLESS the commissioner starts making his decisions for him ... and when that happens he should get his money back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 For those of you that favor allowing vetoes when there is no collusion ... will you give the owner his money back and pay him as if he won the superbowl if it turns out that the trade would have been a "fair and equitable" trade? Â I'll answer that if you first answer how you go about proving collusion. Â That's where I think all these "there must be collusion" advocates lose their footing. Â In the absence of provable collusion, I disagree that every trade should be allowed. I think there are some that are just that bad - the future be damned. Â And we did not refund a penny. And get this.... everyone was back in the next year. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Why do you keep asking that stupid Question? Sometimes it works out the other way. Does that guy pay the commish a few hundred for not letting the trade go through? Jeeezzz  No it doesn't work out the other way.. It's his team that he payed his dues to manage, so Grit's question is completely appropriate...  By vetoing, you're basically saying "I know how to manage your team better than you do", so shouldn't you be responsible for messing with his team if it turns out you didn't know which side was best?  Okay, obviously no one expects the commish to actually do that, but do you see the point? Only the person who paid their league dues should have the right to make decisions for their team, right or wrong.... I fail to see how you can be positive that you know better just by virtue of being the commish. How does that make you so all-knowing to be able to know which side is making out better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'll answer that if you first answer how you go about proving collusion. That's where I think all these "there must be collusion" advocates lose their footing.  In the absence of provable collusion, I disagree that every trade should be allowed. I think there are some that are just that bad - the future be damned.  And we did not refund a penny. And get this.... everyone was back in the next year. Go figure. I agree, Maybe it's just me but if a fantasy noob makes a stupid trade that he thinks is good I'd want it vetoed. Even if its not collusion it ruins the integrity of a team. You can't have one team that is so much better than everyone else just cause he took advantage of a noob, it's not fair to everyone else in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheMan_5 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If someone wanted to trade Chris Johnson after week 1 for Fred Jackson would you have allowed it? Â You would not have, and you would have been WRONG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I agree, Maybe it's just me but if a fantasy noob makes a stupid trade that he thinks is good I'd want it vetoed. Even if its not collusion it ruins the integrity of a team. You can't have one team that is so much better than everyone else just cause he took advantage of a noob, it's not fair to everyone else in the league. Â And if that stupid noob starts Alex Smith instead of Tom Brady or starts Laurent Robinson instead of Megatron ... are you going to manage his starting lineup for him too? In the spirit of fairness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.